Credited forest carbon sinks: How the cost reduction is allocated among countries and sectors

Climate Policy

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 445-461

  Pohjola, Johanna ^a   Kerkelä, Leena ^b   Mäkipää, Raisa ^a  

^a FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^b Valtion taloudellinen tutkimuskeskus Finland   (Finland)

Author keywords

Bonn Agreement; Carbon sequestration; CGE model; Emission reduction; Global economic analysis; GTAP E; Kyoto Protocol

Indexed keywords

CARBON EMISSION; CARBON SINK; EMISSION CONTROL; FOREST; GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE; INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT; KYOTO PROTOCOL;

CANADA; JAPAN;

EID: 0346963765     PISSN: 14693062     EISSN: 17527457     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.clipol.2003.07.001     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Babiker, M.H., Jacoby, H.D., Reilly, J.M., Reiner, D.M., 2002. The evolution of a climate regime: Kyoto to Marrakech. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report No. 82, MIT, Cambridge, USA.
2. Buchner, B., Carraro, C., & Cersosimo, I. (2002). Economic consequences of the US withdrawal from the Kyoto/Bonn Protocol. Clim. Policy, 2 273-292.
3. Burniaux, J.-M., Truong, T.P., 2002. GTAP-E: An energy-environmental version of the GTAP model. GTAP Technical Paper No. 16, http://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/tech_papers.asp
4. Böhringer, C., 2001. Climate Politics from Kyoto to Bonn: From Little to Nothing? ZEW Discussion Paper No. 01-49, Mannheim, Germany, http://www.zew.de
5. Böhringer, J., Jensen, J., Rutherford, T.F., 2000. Energy market projections and differentiated carbon abatement in the European Union. In: Carraro, C. (Ed.), Efficiency and Equity of Climate Change Policy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp. 199-219.
6. den Elzen, M.G.J., de Moor, A.P.G., 2001. Evaluating the Bonn Agreement and some key issues. RIVM-Report 728001016, The Netherlands, http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/728001016.html
7. den Elzen, M. G., & de Moor, A. P. (2002). Evaluating the Bonn-Marrakesh agreement. Clim. Policy, 2 111-117.
8. EIA (Energy Information Administration), 2000. Emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States 1999. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, USA, http://www.eia.doe.gov
9. European Commission, 1999. Energy in Europe: European Union energy outlook to 2020. European Commission, Brussels.
10. FAO, 2000. Forest resources of Europe, CIS, North America, Australia, Japan and New Zealand (industrialized temperate/boreal countries). UN-ECE/FAO Contribution to the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000, Main Report, United Nations, New York/Geneva.
11. GTAP, 2003. http://www.gtap.org
12. Haaparanta, P., Kerkelä, L., Liski, M., Riipinen, T., Sulamaa, P., 2001. Climate change policies, world markets and Finland-simulation results. Helsinki School of Economics Working Papers W-296, Helsinki, Finland.
13. Hertel, T. (Ed.), 1997. Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
14. IPCC, 2000. A Special Report of the IPCC. Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
15. Jakeman, G., Heyhoe, E., Pant, H., Woffenden, K., Fisher, B.S., 2001. The Kyoto Protocol. Economic impacts under the terms of the Bonn agreement. ABARE Conference Paper 2001.28, Canberra, Australia, http://www.abareonlineshop.com/
16. Jakeman, G., Hester, S., Woffenden, K., & Fisher, B. S. (2002). Kyoto Protocol. The first commitment period and beyond. Aust. Commodities, 9(1), 176-197.
17. Liski, J., Karjalainen, T., Pussinen, A., Nabuurs, G. -J, & Kauppi, P. (2000). Trees as carbon sinks and sources in the European Union. Environ. Sci. Policy, 3 91-97.
18. Manne, A., Richels, R., 1999. The Kyoto Protocol: a cost-effective strategy for meeting environmental objectives? In: Weyant, J. (Ed.), The Cost of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation. Energy J. (special issue), pp. 1-23.
19. McDougall, R., Elbehri, A., Truong, T.P. (Eds.), 1998. Global Trade, Assistance, and Protection: The GTAP 4 Data Base, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University, USA.
20. Nilsson, S., Shvidenko, A., Stolbovoi, V., Gluch, M., Jonas, M., Obersteiner, M., 2000. Full carbon account for Russia. IIASA, Interim Report IR-00-021, pp. 1-180.
21. Schulze, E. -D, Valentini, R., & Sanz, M. -J (2002). The long way from Kyoto to Marrakesh: implications of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations for global ecology. Global Change Biol., 8 505-518.
22. State of Europe's forests, 2003. The Ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe (MCPFE) report on sustainable forest management in Europe. MCPFE Liason Unit Vienna and UNECE/FAO, Vienna, Austria.
23. UNFCCC, 1997. The Kyoto Protocol. http://unfccc.int/resource/ convkp.html#kp
24. UNFCCC, 2000. Report on the in-depth review of the second national communication of the Russian Federation by Hanna, J., Parasyuk, N., Mäkipää, R., Graenzen, R. Grabert, J., Simeonova, K. (Eds.), FCCC/IDR.2/RUS. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/idr/rus02.pdf
25. UNFCCC, 2001. Matters relating to land use, land-use change and forestry. FCCC/CP/2001/L.11/Rev.1. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/ cop6secpart/l11r01.pdf
26. UNFCCC, 2003. On-line searchable database of GHG inventory data. http://ghg.unfccc.int/
27. UNFCCC/SBSTA, 2000. Methodological Issues. Land-use, Land-use change and Forestry. Consolidated synthesis of proposals made by Parties. Compilation of country-specific data and information as submitted by Parties. FCCC/SBSTA/2000/9/Add.1. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2000/sbsta/09a1.pdf
28. Weyant, J. (Ed.), 1999. The costs of the Kyoto Protocol: a multi-model evaluation. Energy J. (special issue).